Beckett Enters Dodger Lore with No-Hitter

I'm jazzed today due to Dodger pitcher Josh Beckett's no hitter against the Philadelphia Phillies.  I got to hear most of the 6-0 Los Angeles victory on the radio.  No-hitters are rare in baseball.  The last one thrown by a Dodger pitcher was by Hideo Nomo in 1996.  It's pretty close to the pinnacle achievement a pitcher can reach in one game.  Most hurlers, even good ones, never toss a no-hitter in their entire careers.  Don Drysdale and Don Sutton are two Dodger pitchers of the past whose careers were stellar enough that both are enshrined forever in the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Together they have over 500 victories between them.  Yet neither ever kept an opposing lineup of big league hitters without a single base hit over the course of a full nine-inning game.

Beckett's achievement is particularly remarkable considering a year ago it was an even bet his career was over.  He had lost feeling in his right hand to grip the ball, and was shut down for the season after starting out with a record of 0-5.  It was determined he had a nerve impingement, and he decided on radical surgery wherein doctors removed one of his ribs in an effort to unblock the nerve signals to his hand.  Amazingly, the operation worked.  With today's game Beckett has run his record to 3-1 with an excellent earned run average of just 2.43 runs per nine innings.  These are some of the little joys that can brighten an otherwise ordinary day, punctuated many are with the depressing news items we so often are confronted with.

 

National Appeal Can Help Hold the Senate

What do Democrats need to do to hold on to their majority in the U.S. Senate this year?  Much of the national political speculation for 2014 centers on whether Republicans will be able to gain a majority.  The present membership includes 53 Democrats and 2 independents who caucus with them, versus 45 Republicans.  The Reps therefore need a pickup of 6 seats to swing the upper chamber (a 50-50 split favors the Dems, since Vice President Joe Biden can cast a deciding vote in case of ties.)  The map below shows the national field this year.

Here's what the map means: Dark red are Republicans running for re-election.  Pink are Republican-held seats in which the incumbent is retiring.  Dark blue are Democratic senators running for re-election, and light blue are Democratic seats in which the incumbent is retiring.  Of the 36 seats up for election this year, 21 are held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans. The bottom line is that the Democrats are vulnerable since they have more seats at risk than the Republicans, and because quite a few of these are in conservative states.  I'll get into some state-by-state analysis on this in a later post, but right now I want to suggest a framework for a national appeal.

That appeal would focus on highlighting the difference between what the Democrats and Republicans have been standing on and voting for in the past few years.  A vague sense of impatience with the pace of economic recovery and a sharper frustration with gridlock in Washington is working against the Democrats as the incumbent party.  But an effective appeal would highlight the idea that Democrats have been promoting policies the people actually want, and that Republican obstruction is  the reason they aren't getting passed.  An appeal to the voters ought to go something like this:

Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage.  They think $14,500 a year for full time work, an income that qualifies you for food stamps, is too much.  Do you agree?  Really?  Republicans have voted to repeal health care 50 times.  You're going to vote to take health care away from 15 million people who now have it?  Really?  They even shut down the entire government over it.  Do you feel that was a pretty smart move?  The Republican budget passed in the House caps Medicare and turns it into a voucher program.  Is that something you would like to see in place when you retire?  Republicans have voted against every bill to require equal pay for a woman doing the same job with the same performance review as a man.  You're going to vote for that?  Really?  Republicans still stand opposed to marriage equality for gays and lesbians.  They've been fighting it for years.  Are you going to vote against that?  Now?  Really?  Republicans won't even bring the immigration reform that's passed the Senate up for a vote in the House.  Are you for keeping 11 million people in legal limbo in our country, for denying U.S. veterans a path to citizenship, for keeping our agriculture from procuring legal labor, and for making it difficult for America to retain the foreign students who earn advanced degrees at our universities?  And Republicans blocked sensible legislation to require background checks to make sure felons, terrorists and the violently mentally ill can't walk into a gun show and buy an assault rifle.  After all the mayhem and mass shootings in our country over the past few years, do you think that's in the best interest of the safety of the American people?  Do you really?

This isn't theoretical.  It's not just rhetoric.  These are all demonstrated positions the Republicans have not only advocated, but actually voted for.  Is this the America you want to live in?  Really?           



  

Natoli-Lomanaco Wedding

As promised, here is a picture of many Natoli family members at Saturday's wedding.







The picture includes: Front row: Marie (Natoli) Jahelka, Susan (Natoli) Ruth, Toni Natoli, Laura Natoli and Rebecca LoManaco the happy couple, Jeanette Natoli, Joan Natoli.  Second Row: Robert Jahelka, Katy Ruth, Kevin Ruth, Gina Natoli, Mark Natoli, Eric Ruth, Steve Natoli.  Not pictured: Laura's sisters Maria and Diana, and mother Mary Jane Natoli.







Here is the happy couple exchanging vows.

Cousin Laura Getting Married Today

Today's news is that Joan and I will be heading to Simi Valley for my cousin Laura Natoli's wedding.  She and her loving partner Rebecca LoMonaco will be tying the knot this afternoon at their home.  It promises to be a happy occasion attended by Natolis and friends from all over.  My sister Toni is flying in from Seattle, and Aunt Mary Jane, Laura's mom, will be getting up from her recent bout of pneumonia to be there.  Joan and I will be meeting with daughters Marie and Jeanette and Marie's husband Robert beforehand for a little Mother's Day festivity.

This is our first official family same sex wedding.  It's great to see our state, California, embracing and recognizing people's love without discrimination any more, and it's wonderful to see the acceptance and good wishes of family members old and young.  I hope to have a follow up entry with some pictures. 

Retired Justice Stevens: Constitution Needs Amending

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book: Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.  The nation's third-longest serving Justice, Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975 and retired in 2010 after over 34 years on the nation's highest court.  On April 30 he appeared and submitted testimony to the Senate Rules and Administration committee on his proposed amendments.  Though none are likely to pass in the near future, owing to the politics involved, all are excellent ideas for shoring up a democracy badly in need of some common sense help.  Maybe in the long run his wisdom will triumph.  Here they are.  My comments follow. 

1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.
3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
5. Death Penalty- (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
6. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

Amendment 1 clarifies the "supremacy clause," declaring that federal law supersedes state and local laws.  "State's rights" advocates, apparently still not reconciled to the outcome of the Civil War, will never stop until it is spelled out this obviously.
Amendment 2 is badly needed so that the actual composition of the voting population of a state will most often determine who is elected, rather than political tampering with district boundaries for partisan gain.
Amendment 3 is, in my view, the most badly needed of all.  If something like this isn't put in place we are well on our way to becoming a plutocracy.                                                                               Amendment 4 backs up his first suggestion, in case anyone didn't get the message.
Amendment 5 is a provision whose time has come.  In 1976, new to the High Court, Stevens voted to sustain the death penalty.  He has since evolved on the issue.  This barbaric practice must go.   Why? Two wrongs don't make a right, it's impossible to rectify a mistaken conviction, and once a person is in state custody and no threat, to kill him/her is simply murder.
Amendment 6 restores the original intent of the Second Amendment.  Good luck getting this passed anytime soon, though.